Creation vs. Evolution

[sicbeing]

There is no what if with what God promises. But while we're on the "what if" game, what if God put scientific evidence in our way so that we may continue to grow technologically to better ourselves as a society through science and medicine?

I think he was making that comment because of what terrorists or whoever believe, killing infadels to be with god when they die.

 

[Swift]

My position is not based on its workability. It isn't based on convenience or what I would like to be true. It is based on my experiences and what I am capable of understanding with my brain - it is the inevitable conclusion that one must reach if one truly considers the nature of metaphysics. This is the reason I tell you evolution is not provable, and yet I can tell you that it has more evidencial support than your religious beliefs.

Then I am to deduce that you have rather limited experiences. Also, nothing can be proven to you from that point of view.

 

[Danoff]

Then I am to deduce that you have rather limited experiences. Also, nothing can be proven to you from that point of view.

If the second sentence were true it would invalidate your conclusion in the first. However, (as I have said many times) the second sentence is not true, for I know that I exist - it has been proven to me. The second sentence would be more valid if it said "one thing can be proven to you from that point of view"... which would still invalidate the first.

 

[Swift]

If the second sentence were true it would invalidate your conclusion in the first. However, (as I have said many times) the second sentence is not true, for I know that I exist - it has been proven to me. The second sentence would be more valid if it said "one thing can be proven to you from that point of view"... which would still invalidate the first.

You exist, how has that been proven to you by anything that you couldn't immediately dismiss?

 

[Pako]

I think that what I think danoff is saying is that "I think, therefore I am", self realization. His self realization is all the proof he needs.

Sorry, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Swift]

I think that what I think danoff is saying is that "I think, therefore I am", self realization. His self realization is all the proof he needs.

Ok, well if that's the standpoint. Then anyone can think anything. Proof or no proof. But as FAmine says, that doesn't make it true.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, well if that's the standpoint. Then anyone can think anything. Proof or no proof. But as Famine says, that doesn't make it true.

No.

I think. I know this to be true because I do it. If I choose to consider myself the thinker of my thoughts (which I do) then I exist as the thinker of my thoughts.

That's logic. No science, no evidence, no math. Logic is the least questionable of all of thought. It is questionable only by the possibility that the laws of logic can be usurped by a higher power or some fundamental change in reality... but I didn't even rely on the laws of logic to accomplish this. I relied only on definition. By defining myself as the thinker of my thoughts, I have defined myself as existing. All that I must know is that the thoughts I am thinking are occuring - which I do... because I thought about it.

I can't prove this to you or anyone else. But by having my thoughts I know that I exist.

 

[Swift]

No.

I think. I know this to be true because I do it. If I choose to consider myself the thinker of my thoughts (which I do) then I exist as the thinker of my thoughts.

That's logic. No science, no evidence, no math. Logic is the least questionable of all of thought. It is questionable only by the possibility that the laws of logic can be usurped by a higher power or some fundamental change in reality... but I didn't even rely on the laws of logic to accomplish this. I relied only on definition. By defining myself as the thinker of my thoughts, I have defined myself as existing. All that I must know is that the thoughts I am thinking are occuring - which I do... because I thought about it.

I can't prove this to you or anyone else. But by having my thoughts I know that I exist.

You know what's funny about that. If you substitute "bible" and "God" in there for "thoughts" it sounds EXACTLY like what christians would say. Amazing huh?

 

[Pako]

No.

I think. I know this to be true because I do it. If I choose to consider myself the thinker of my thoughts (which I do) then I exist as the thinker of my thoughts.

That's logic. No science, no evidence, no math. Logic is the least questionable of all of thought. It is questionable only by the possibility that the laws of logic can be usurped by a higher power or some fundamental change in reality... but I didn't even rely on the laws of logic to accomplish this. I relied only on definition. By defining myself as the thinker of my thoughts, I have defined myself as existing. All that I must know is that the thoughts I am thinking are occuring - which I do... because I thought about it.

I can't prove this to you or anyone else. But by having my thoughts I know that I exist.

And through the realization and awareness of God I have defined God's existence. It is God who I look to for guidance in hard situations. It is God who carries me through difficult times that other wise would have broken me. It is God who I hold my allegiance with. I can't prove these things to you, but I can see the existence of God in my own life. Much in the same way that you know that you exist being the thinker of your own thoughts.

 

[Danoff]

You know what's funny about that. If you substitute "bible" and "God" in there for "thoughts" it sounds EXACTLY like what christians would say. Amazing huh?

Either I didn't follow you, or you didn't follow me.

And through the realization and awareness of God I have defined God's existence.

No you haven't. You defined God through the description in the bible and linked that definition to your own "realization" and "awareness. Totally different.

It is God who I look to for guidance in hard situations. It is God who carries me through difficult times that other wise would have broken me. It is God who I hold my allegiance with.

You can call it God, but you can't link it with what the bible calls God... and what you call God here could be the devil, or yourself - you don't even know.

but I can see the existence of God in my own life. Much in the same way that you know that you exist being the thinker of your own thoughts.

You perceive something. You call it God but it could be anything, it could even be you. I don't think you followed what I wrote.


(Edit: I think you both took this line

I can't prove this to you or anyone else. But by having my thoughts I know that I exist.

and thought it sounded like your situation. But it's quite different.)

 

[Danoff]

Allow me to explain why when I say

"I can't prove this to you or anyone else. But by having my thoughts I know that I exist."

It is different than when religious folks say the same thing.

The conclusion that I draw (that I exist) comes from direct observations that I cannot share with anyone else (that I think). Others can have the same observations of themselves, but not of me – because when I assert that I think, it could actually be them thinking in their mind.

Anyway, the key is that the observation I draw my conclusions from is not something that I can share or prove to others.

Religious people also claim that they have an observation that they cannot share with anyone else. They claim that they have experienced God, and that that experience is not provable because one must experience it for themselves. On the surface, this looks to be quite similar to my situation – but it is not.

I experience thought, and I define myself to be the thinker of that thought.
Religious people experience something, and they define that something to be God.

Parallel so far, and completely acceptable logically.

However, I cannot say ANYTHING further than that I am the thinker of my thoughts. NOTHING further can be concluded. I cannot differentiate any experience I have from my own thoughts or some external force because there is no logical means to do so.

Religious people can also (logically) only prove that they are the thinker of their thoughts – the perceiver of their perceptions. But they cannot differentiate between what is in their mind and what is external (just as I cannot). So to take things a step further and say that this particular thing is in my head, and this particular thing is from something ELSE which I call God is not logically sound.

But let’s take it a step further. Let’s say (beyond that with logic permits) that you could SOMEHOW figure out that part of your perceptions are created external to yourself by what you call God. You still have no means of identifying this thing. You cannot say, for example, that you know it is the God of the new testament. You can’t say that it is the devil. You can’t say that it is anything that you think might exist outside your own thoughts. So even if you could figure out that it isn’t you who is imagining the whole thing – you still couldn’t figure out what it is.

I cannot prove that I exist to YOU because you cannot see the evidence.
You cannot logically prove that God exists to YOURSELF even though you think you have evidence.

There is a difference.

 

[sicbeing]

Dan your past 5 posts or so, you've done nothing but make my head hurt.

 

[Danoff]

Dan your past 5 posts or so, you've done nothing but make my head hurt.

Yea. I get the feeling that I'm not doing a good job communicating.

 

[Duke]

I've got a bit to add on this subject of metaphysics and logic, but it will take a while to formulate it, if I can. Basically it boils down to the fact that you are logically correct; however, we can derive a working language and philosophy that gets past that by relying on common sensations and perceptions.

 

[PS]

You choose by the saving grace of Jesus who died and the cross for all of mankind's sin and rose again. Since we didn't have miniDV's back then, we'll have to settle for the 500+ eye witnesses that he spoke to after he rose from the dead. Then you have countless personal testimonies of how Christ has helped themselves or family members with illness, depression, financial burdens, and other life problems that seem too big to handle. So you have a choice to believe it or not, it's ultimately your choice. Your choice doesn't confirm or deny Christ.

Pako, if jesus only saves those who believes, howcome millions of atheists overcome those burdens every day? ...or is that just dumb luck?

Howcome as soon as someone mentions they're religious, it must have been god/Jesus's hand that helped them? Hmm?

 

[ledhed]

I get very scared and almost physically ill when I think of the possibility of a scientist or a doctor believing anything on that genisis web site . In fact if a doctor would admit to it he should be stripped of his licsense to practice medicine .

 

[PS]

I get very scared and almost physically ill when I think of the possibility of a scientist or a doctor believing anything on that genisis web site . In fact if a doctor would admit to it he should be stripped of his licsense to practice medicine .

Judging by the flag in your avatar, I'm going to say you are...

A) Somewhat to very right wing- and thus Christian, or of a similar denomination

or B) just proud of your country.

But assuming you are A), putting you into a religious category, I find your post to be somewhat misleading— agreeing that doctors/scientists would have to be nuts to believe that?


I agree too, but I do't fully understand your position or argument.

 

[Pako]

Pako, if jesus only saves those who believes, howcome millions of atheists overcome those burdens every day? ...or is that just dumb luck?

Howcome as soon as someone mentions they're religious, it must have been god/Jesus's hand that helped them? Hmm?

He saves us by us not parishing, but giving us eternal life. I'm not talking about having a bad day and getting help to over come it, I'm talking about eternal life or lack there of.

Luck won't get you eternal life, only Jesus can do that.

 

[Pako]

Either I didn't follow you, or you didn't follow me.



No you haven't. You defined God through the description in the bible and linked that definition to your own "realization" and "awareness. Totally different.



You can call it God, but you can't link it with what the bible calls God... and what you call God here could be the devil, or yourself - you don't even know.



You perceive something. You call it God but it could be anything, it could even be you. I don't think you followed what I wrote.


(Edit: I think you both took this line



and thought it sounded like your situation. But it's quite different.)

Here's the thing though, the God I have come to know through my personal relationship with Him is consistent to what the Bible writes about in who God is. This is what gives the Bible a place in my life, it reaffirms my experiences and thoughts. You have no basis for your claim that what I feel or experience is not real. You have no way to prove that it isn't God, much in the same way that you can't prove that you exist(according to your definition), much in the same way that I can't prove that it is God except that I know it's God through my personal experience. Until you have personally experienced God, you have no basis for any claims against God. There is nothing that you can say that will change what life experiences I have had. My experiences are my "ultimate truth" as it happened to me. I didn't have to read about it in a book, I didn't have to ask any professionals what it was I was experiencing because it happened first hand.

 

[Pako]

Allow me to explain why when I say

"I can't prove this to you or anyone else. But by having my thoughts I know that I exist."

It is different than when religious folks say the same thing.

The conclusion that I draw (that I exist) comes from direct observations that I cannot share with anyone else (that I think). Others can have the same observations of themselves, but not of me – because when I assert that I think, it could actually be them thinking in their mind.

Anyway, the key is that the observation I draw my conclusions from is not something that I can share or prove to others.

Religious people also claim that they have an observation that they cannot share with anyone else. They claim that they have experienced God, and that that experience is not provable because one must experience it for themselves. On the surface, this looks to be quite similar to my situation – but it is not.

I experience thought, and I define myself to be the thinker of that thought.
Religious people experience something, and they define that something to be God.

Parallel so far, and completely acceptable logically.

However, I cannot say ANYTHING further than that I am the thinker of my thoughts. NOTHING further can be concluded. I cannot differentiate any experience I have from my own thoughts or some external force because there is no logical means to do so.

Religious people can also (logically) only prove that they are the thinker of their thoughts – the perceiver of their perceptions. But they cannot differentiate between what is in their mind and what is external (just as I cannot). So to take things a step further and say that this particular thing is in my head, and this particular thing is from something ELSE which I call God is not logically sound.

But let’s take it a step further. Let’s say (beyond that with logic permits) that you could SOMEHOW figure out that part of your perceptions are created external to yourself by what you call God. You still have no means of identifying this thing. You cannot say, for example, that you know it is the God of the new testament. You can’t say that it is the devil. You can’t say that it is anything that you think might exist outside your own thoughts. So even if you could figure out that it isn’t you who is imagining the whole thing – you still couldn’t figure out what it is.

I cannot prove that I exist to YOU because you cannot see the evidence.
You cannot logically prove that God exists to YOURSELF even though you think you have evidence.

There is a difference.

Are the voices in my head bothering you?

I can see and understand what you're saying, but how do you know that who you think you are is who you really are? In your mind you can exist even if you really don't exist. I'm sure you have heard of a person having multiple personalities. What consciousness defines who the person really is? You think you have only one set of memories, you think you have only one consciousness, but in and of yourself, there is no way to be sure, but you can live in the now, and react accordingly to your thoughts and memories of who you think you are and that is your truth, that is your reality that you have concluded to be true. I can't deny your existence anymore than you can deny the existence of my Lord and savior who promises eternal life if I believe in Him.

 

[Famine]

It's very brave of you to address multiple personality disorder, whilst claiming that the voice in your head is God.

I do believe we're veering somewhat off-topic again though.

 

[Danoff]

Here's the thing though, the God I have come to know through my personal relationship with Him is consistent to what the Bible writes about in who God is.

That doesn't mean anything. It does mean that the bible is correct, it could be coincidence! It could also be a trick to make you think it's God. Perhaps the devil put the bible on the earth to trick everyone away from the real God - who we know nothing about. You can't know.

You have no basis for your claim that what I feel or experience is not real.

I don't claim that what you feel or experience is not real. I claim that you cannot know whether it is real.

much in the same way that I can't prove that it is God except that I know it's God through my personal experience.

I explain earlier why you cannot know anything through your personal experiences other than that you exist.

Until you have personally experienced God, you have no basis for any claims against God.

I do not claim that god doesn't exist. I claim that it is unlikely that god exists. I also claim that you cannot claim that God does exist.

My experiences are my "ultimate truth" as it happened to me.

Ultimate truth by definition is independant of the observer. It cannot be "as it happened to you". If truth is different for you than it is for me, than it does not exist.

 

[Pako]

It's very brave of you to address multiple personality disorder, whilst claiming that the voice in your head is God.

I do believe we're veering somewhat off-topic again though.

I thought that the existence of God was being questioned. If one can prove that God doesn't exist, then this discussion is over. Since no one can prove that he does not exist, this conversation will continue until Christ's return.

 

[Famine]

As Duke so rightly pointed out, you cannot prove that Tagaloa doesn't exist. This doesn't magically confer existence upon him.

You cannot prove that I am not a computer attempting to win the Turing Prize. That doesn't necessarily prove that I am.

Belief in something so poorly-defined, so intangible and so ineffable that its existence can neither be proven nor disproven - no matter how fine the tool - but whose existence you believe you can determine by nature of voices in your head and how they tie in with the book you got the idea from is not logical.


Many people believe, whole-heartedly, that they have been abducted by aliens. They majority describe "greys" - 3 foot tall, grey skin, big black eyes. They cite the consistency between their observations and other observations they read before. They are seemingly unaware of the fact that they've read about it before and so when they experience something strange, during which the mind conjures up things (coma/prolonged sleep/hypoxia/NDE) drawn from its previous experiences, that it isn't their obervations which are consistent with previous reports, but their observations are consistent DUE TO previous reports.

 

[Flame-returns]

However as Douglas Adams points out proving gods existence isntantly disproves his existence.

 

[Pako]

As Duke so rightly pointed out, you cannot prove that Tagaloa doesn't exist. This doesn't magically confer existence upon him.

You cannot prove that I am not a computer attempting to win the Turing Prize. That doesn't necessarily prove that I am.

Belief in something so poorly-defined, so intangible and so ineffable that its existence can neither be proven nor disproven - no matter how fine the tool - but whose existence you believe you can determine by nature of voices in your head and how they tie in with the book you got the idea from is not logical.


Many people believe, whole-heartedly, that they have been abducted by aliens. They majority describe "greys" - 3 foot tall, grey skin, big black eyes. They cite the consistency between their observations and other observations they read before. They are seemingly unaware of the fact that they've read about it before and so when they experience something strange, during which the mind conjures up things (coma/prolonged sleep/hypoxia/NDE) drawn from its previous experiences, that it isn't their obervations which are consistent with previous reports, but their observations are consistent DUE TO previous reports.

Although I can prove that He exists through my life experiences, this proof is not proof enough for you who have not shared in the same experience. If you would share in the same experience, then my proof would be much more palatable and acceptable by you.

The millions of Christians across the globe that share in similar experiences with Christ are of a more convincing number than alien abductees. But as it was discussed before, just because masses believe in something, this doesn't make it true.

I'll go back to danoff's self experience and how he can prove that he exists, not to anyone else, but to himself. And again, until you experience it for yourself, there is nothing that I can prove to you. I can only share my own life experience.

 

[Flame-returns]

What about the Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus?

They claim to experience fulfilnuss? Is it christ? Is it Allah? Is it simply a psychological thing? Or are they actually unfulfilled, and are from inferior religions?

 

[Danoff]

I'll go back to danoff's self experience and how he can prove that he exists, not to anyone else, but to himself. And again, until you experience it for yourself, there is nothing that I can prove to you. I can only share my own life experience.

I wrote an essay about why those are different situations.

You cannot prove EVEN TO YOURSELF that god exists because given your experiences (which I assumed to be true), you cannot logically come to the conclusion you have.

I can prove TO MYSELF that I exist because given my experiences I can logically come to the conclusion I did.

See the difference?

 

[PS]

He saves us by us not parishing, but giving us eternal life. I'm not talking about having a bad day and getting help to over come it, I'm talking about eternal life or lack there of.

Luck won't get you eternal life, only Jesus can do that.

I'm talking about depression, PTSD, suicidal tendancies, going from homeless for most of your life to rich, surviving cancer, all those kinds of "miracles".

 

[Touring Mars]

Proof of God, either positive of negative, is unnecessary to explain evolution.

Creationists may argue that all life was designed, and that the complexity of living things is 'proof' of design, but this argument is very weak.... As Famine has pointed out before, as does Richard Dawkins in 'The Blind Watchmaker', the concept of a designer is nonsensical for the sole reason that, who designed the designer? Did God just spontaneously appear? If you are prepared to accept that argument, then by definition, you should also be prepared to accept the argument 'DNA just spontaneously appeared...'

Ironically, it is the Evolutionists who are not prepared to accept this simplistic argument.... DNA and the proteins that control DNA replication, did not just spontaneously 'appear' (it is practically impossible anyway), nor were they just manufactured from thin air by an omnipotent 'designer'... the only explanation for the presence of such complex biochemical apparatus is that it has evolved/emerged incrementally from simpler biochemical 'replicators'... a simple example of this is crystals... or even fibril formation in Alzheimer's disease... drop a crystal into a saturated solution of the same substance and watch what happens... the whole solution will crystallise.... drop an amyloid fibril into a solution of prion protein and watch the soluble protein fibrillise... in other words, the basic physics and chemistry of self-replication is easy to demonstrate. Proteins and DNA are both (coincidentally??) types of biological polymer - long chains of amino acids (proteins) and very very long chains of nucleic acid (DNA)... but it is entirely possible that before what we now recognise as 'life' existed, a more simple form of 'biochemistry' took place....

I concede, maybe God 'created' atoms, and he even created Earth, the universe and everything.... but there really is no rationale behind the assertion that he 'created' every living creature in a magical (and probably pretty messy) workshop, a macabre precursor to Jim Henson perhaps? It is far easier to explain and to understand the role of evolution to accept the fact that a creator made us what we are out of bits and bobs he found lying around...